Pedagoske primjene kontrastivne lingvistike primjeri iz prakse

In tlic course of learning a second language, learners regularly produce utterances in sj)ccch and
writing which judged by the rules of the second language arc erroneous, or ill-formed.
Traditionally the attitude to errors was that they were an indication of the difllculties that the
learners had with ccrtain aspects of the language, which could be explained by the persistence
of the habits of the m other tongue and their transfer to the new language (Lado, 1957). Errors
were the result of interference and in an ideal teaching situation could be avoided. From this
notion has developed the whole industry of contrastive linguistics , with research projects and
regular publications of results in a num ber of countries, including South Africa.T he topic of this
article suggests that there is something called "Contrastive Analysis and before one can pursue
its relcvance to language teaching it seems appropriate to define and discuss what is m eant by
the term. The m odern view of contrastive analysis as the analysis and interpretation of
interference errors is not to be confused with the Contrastive Analysis approach to
interference])henomena as an instrument of prediction, proposed by applied linguists such as
Fries (1945) and Lado (1957). In his pre|)aration of teaching materials at the English Language
Institute of the University of M ichigan, Fries stated the guiding pi inciple to his view of the
acquisition of the target language: 'Ihe most efl'ective materials are those that arc based upon a
scientific

U toku ucenja stranog jezika ucenici redovno produkuju recenice u usmenom i pismenom obliku
koje su gledano kroz pravila toga stranog jezika pogresne ili lose formirane. Tradicionalno stav
prema greskama je bio da su one indikatori teskoca koje ucenici imaju sa odjedjenim aspektima
jezika, koje mogu biti objasnjene mijesanjem navika iz maternjeg jezika i njihovog tranfera u
jezik koji se uci
description ofthe language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel
description o fth e native language o fth e learner (1945, p. 9).
This view presupposes that diTiculties in the acquisition of the target
language may be predicted and if eliminated will cause the learning of the
target language to be facilitated. T he aspect of prediction in a CA, especially
in so far as it concerns its practical application in the teaching procedure of
the target language, was stressed throughout. Lado emphasizes this point
when he slates: T he plan o fth e book rests on the a.ssumption that we can
predict
and describe the patterns that will cause difllculty by com paring
systematically the language and culture to be learned with the native
language and culture o fth e student (Lado, 1957, p. vii). The principle of
target language learning was based on the a.ssumption that the major
problem was caused by inter-lingual identification and that the diil'erences
63
l)ctwecn ihf sourer language and the target language once they had been
predicted could be diniinishcd by exposing the learner to drills specirically
designed to ch an ge his linguistic betiaviour at the relevant jjoints.
'Ihcoretically, this seemed a perCectly valid argum ent and consequently
during the 19f)0s a spate of contrastive studies appeared all over the world.
Since 1960 however, developmenl along these lines has been severely
checked and for a variety of reasons of which the most im portant were;
1. the close links the approach had with structural linguistics which at that
lime was being ousted by the transformational generative theory; and,
2. its close lies with the theory of behaviourism which also at that time
seemed to be completely negated by psychologists and linguists.
3. M ore im portant, scholars working in the field of Applied Linguistics also
criticized the approach, firstly on the grounds that it had very little
practical application in the classroom situation (Nemser, 1971, p. 115-
123), secondly that not all errors could be traced to interference by the
source language (Duskova, 1969, p. 11136) and thirdly that whal GA
[)redicted as likely diniculties did not always turn out to be so (Nickel,
1971, p. 219-227).
As a result of the intense debate that has raged around the value of the
CA hypothesis, two distinct versions have emerged: CA apriori or
predicative or strong version and aposteriori or explanatory or weak
version. Initially the distinction between the two versions rests on a
diilerence of point of view. The strong version, as has already i)een said,
departs I'rorn a point of view in which it wishes
to predicl
errors which will
occui in the target language. 'I'he weaker version makes no such claims.
It wishes to
exfdain
why errors in the target language occur. Assuming
that learners of language A arc found by the process known as
error
analysis
to make recurring errors in a particular construction in their
attem pts to learti language B, the analyst makes an analysis of the
construction in language H and the com parable construction in language
A in order to discover
why
the errors occur. In this way the analyst
discovers w hat learners actually do in their attem pts to acquire another
language instead of predicting what they will do (Schachter, 197.5, p.
206). 'I'his approach seems to be more worthwhile to the practising
teacher.
W hal then, is an error analysis?
64
In liis use of a language tlie language user employs a set of cognitive
structures acquired by some process of clata-processing (rules of gram m ar)
anel hypothesis formation (language exposure) in which the making of errors
is evidence of the actual learning process. It may even be argued that the
making of errors is a prerequisite to this learning activity (Nickel, 1973, p.
24). You can t learn without goofmg. (Dulay and Burt, 1974, p. 95). At
the same time it may also be argued that the degree of error is indicative of
I
he degree of competence achieved by the learner; that is, if target language
acquisition is seen as the possession of a certain kind of knowledge
(competence) instead of dispositions to respond to certain stimuli.
N. Chomskys well-known distinction between what the speaker knows
about his language (competence) and what actually happens when he
speaks the language (performance) is of relevance here. T he analyst has to
distinguish between the speakers intrinsic knowledge (or lack of knowledge)
of the L T and his mistakes which are similar to mistakes m ade by native
speakers and cla.ssified by other speakers as ungram m atical . Very often
performance is an imperfect reflection of competence: e.g. the fact that
people occasionally have sli])s of the tongue in every day conversation
does nog m ean that they d o n t know their language, or dont have fluency
(i.e. competence) in it. Duskov (1969, p. 12) makes the following distinction
between errors in com petence and errors in performance: . . . mistakes
which are tlcfined as adventitious, random errors in performance due to
memory lapses, physical states, etc. of which the speaker is inmiediately
aware, and systematic errors which rcilect a defect in knowledge .
T he key words that should be noted are random errors and systematic
errors . R an do m errors , such as
hie
for
ihe
may be ignored in an Error
Analysis.
O nce em barked on the design of an Error Analysis the analyst is usually
confiontcd with the problem of w hat to do with the error analysis. It is
agreed that a tnere listing ol errors will be of limited value only. No errors
are errors in themselves (Enkvist, 1972, p. 19). 'I'he aim should be to
provide an adequate linguistic explanation of the n atiue of the errors found
in a particular learning situation. A possible framework of a typical error
analysis could include the following:
(a) types of errors (cla.ssillcation with regard to the target system) i.e.
classification according e.g. to grammatical categories;
(b) frequency of errors, in order to determine the seriousness of various
errors;
65
(c) explanation of errors in linguistic terms;
(d) degree of dislin baiicc caused by errors; and,
(e) therapy (how teaching should be arranged so as to eliminate the errors).
(a) Types o f errors:
G ram m ar can be divided into siib-categorics of morphology, noun phrase,
verb phrase and syntax. Lexis may have three subcategories; content words,
function words and com m on expressions. Perform ance mistakes may be
ignored. T he system has m any ailvantages as it is easy to handle, it may be
extended to include new subcategories and comparisons can be m ade
between m ain categories and sub-categories. It is suggest that the analysis be
based on free production i.e. short paragraphs. In other types of test
material, such as g ram m ar tests and multiple choice tests there is a danger in
that they have an inherent classification built into them because a test
constructor will include items which he thinks arc im portant for the students
to know whereas the analyst wants to determ ine the actual conipetencc of
his students.
(b) Frequency
T he errors are evaluated to determ ine frequency of occurrence. T he
frequent occurrence of a specific form or the evasion of a specific form
leading to circumlocution and consequently, clumsy constructions is
indicative of the learners lack of com petence at this point in his learning
process. T he seriousness or degree of deviation from the norm is open to
various interpretations. Jam es (1974) proposes an assessment based upon
the rules trangressed. Johanssen (1973) suggests that the degree of
disturbance an error m ay have on the elFiciency of communications should
be investigated. There is obviously a diiferencc in the degree of com
prehensibility between
the two men is walking down the street , and
a poem should be short and sinful .
(c) Explanation
It is necessary to find some linguistic and psycholinguistic explanation for
the occurrcnce of the errors in the analysis.
66
1. A litiguistic explanation
Back-lranslalion m ay be used to discover w hat the pupils intended to say
and then the equivalent Afrikaans structure e.g. is com pared to the correct
English structure, to determine the type of error committed by the pupils.
E.g. * a poem should be short and sinful
n gcdig behoort kort en sinvol te wees.
Use was m ade of a one-to-one relation in translating from the source
language.
From a lexical entry such as:
aktucel: actual, real, timely, topical, of current interest,
learners select
actual
because it is close to the source language in sound and
structure.
* He writes about .something that is actual.
2. A psycholinguistic explanation
'Ihrec principal cau.ses for error can be investigated:
2.1 Interference from the source language:
* He walk home
Hy loop huistoe.
2.2 Intralanguage interference resulting not from the source language but
from the target language itself.
* 'I'he girls walks home.
2.3 Faulty teaching techniques of materials or develoijmental errors
referred to as a process of hypothesizing false concepts or as induced
errors .
e.g. 'i'he u.se of ihc present progressive tense where the present indefinite
tense sufllces.
(d) Degree of disturbance caused by errors
A tolerancc study or degree of irritation that native speakers have for an
67
error is another criterion for evaluation purposes. Edlciency ofconimuiiica-
tion is liowevei' of major importance.
(e) T herapy
'I'o my mind, language teacliing is no more than the provision ol suitalile
conclit ions for language learning. A contrastive analysis should provide each
learner with the right conditions at the right time.
W hat then is the rclevance of all this to language teaching? W hat is the
norm al sit\iation in a cla.ssroom? T he average tcacher has a syllabus, from
which he draws u]) a scheme of work which he proposes to leach to his pupils.
It may be argued that the teacher knows intuitively which errors his pupils
arc going to make, but this is a debatable point. W e so often find that
teachers teach and i e-teaeh elements of g ram m ar at Secondary Scliool which
the pupils had already mastered at Prim ary School level. At the same time
they give little or no attention to other components of the language (e.g.
extension of the pupils lexicon). If the teacher really wishes to achieve target
teaching he has to determ ine what the needs are of his pupils. O nce he h<-is
determ ined the problem areas of a specific group of pupils, he can devise a
meaningful scheme of work (and this may dilTer from group to group).
Therapy or rem edial work can only be attem pted if and when the tcacher
has determ ined which errors pupils really make.
Indications of the pedagogical relevance of the studies discussed fall into
three categories: the problem of correction; the design of syllabusses and
remedial programmes; and the writing of pedagogical grammers. All these
arc related to those studies which I have called error analysis.
'I'he problem of correction is two-fold: w hat to correct and how to corrcct.
T he first c|ucstion is conccrned with the assessment of the gravity of the error
in terms of its interference with comprehensibility or the degree of linguistic
deviance. T he need must be stressed that we have to encourage learners to
com m unicate and that wc have to devise correction techniques with this
always in m ind, for exam ple by requesting rephrasing or amplifying the
message, in the way that adults react to infants utterances in their m other
longue.
T he relevance of the actual perform ance of the students as revealed by the
EA to the designing of syllabuses is based on the notion that there is some
natural sequence ofelal)oration of the approximative system ol the .second-
language learner, Nem ser (1971) and that w hen this can be well established
it would provide a psychological logic to the ordering of material in a
f)0
syllabus.
As far as ihc design of pedagogical gram m ars is concerned, the effectiveness
of the presentation and practising of linguistic materials must ultimately
depend upon whal is discovered about the actual process and strategies of
language learning, Allen (1973).
W hat is' required is a more intelligent realistic appraisal of language
materials based on a C ontact Analysis approach especially in a language
contact situation as we have in